MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209370510 · doi:10.1080/10463283.2021.1988404

The behavioural immune system and pandemic psychology: the evolved psychology of disease-avoidance and its implications for attitudes, behaviour, and public health during epidemic outbreaks

2021· review· en· W3209370510 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Schaller, Damian R. Murray, Marlise K. Hofer

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Review of Social Psychology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyPrejudice (legal term)PandemicSocial psychologyConformityPublic healthStigma (botany)Social distancePopulationInterpersonal communicationDiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Infectious disease (medical specialty)PsychiatryMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides an overview of the “behavioural immune system” – a suite of psychological mechanisms that complements immunological defences by motivating pre-emptive behavioural responses to infection threats – and summarises research documenting its implications for social attitudes and social behaviour. This summary focuses on four domains of phenomena: interpersonal interactions, stigma and prejudice, conformity, and political attitudes. Then, drawing on this conceptual and empirical background, the article discusses consequences that disease outbreaks (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) may have for individuals’ attitudes and actions, and the further consequences that these attitudes and actions might plausibly have for population-level epidemiological and public health outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.300
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.146 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Review of Social PsychologySame topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentFrench-language works237,207